With a background in economics and public policy, I've covered domestic and international energy issues since 1998. I'm the editor-in-chief for Public Utilities Fortnightly, which is a paid subscription-based magazine that was established in 1929. My column, which also appears in the CSMonitor, has twice been named Best Online Column by two different media organizations. Twitter: @Ken_Silverstein. Email: ken@silversteineditorial.com

Ontario, Canada, U.S. And Africa: Energy Philosophies Are Worlds Apart

Ontario, Canada’s announcement last April that it had closed the last of its remaining coal-fired power plants and that it has vowed to never build another one rippled throughout the world community — even in Africa, which despite its acceptance of climate change has said that it still needs coal plants.

The United States, meanwhile, has clamped down on carbon-intensive power production that has hurt its domestic coal business — a philosophy that it is also exporting around the world. In other words, the Obama administration will not directly fund coal projects without carbon capture capabilities, even in Africa where it has it committed to invest $7 billion in energy infrastructure.

African leaders, though, think that they are being asked to be cleaner than either Canada or the United States has ever been — all while they are trying to economically drive their countries: “Africa should be allowed to look at coal’s potential,” says Chinedu Ositadinma Nebo, minister of Power for Nigeria, at a conference sponsored by General ElectricGeneral Electric and the Economist. “Many areas have coal deposits and it is critical for those places in Africa that have no energy.”

Let’s break this down: Ontario is Canada’s most populated province that encompasses the residents of Toronto and Ottawa and which epitomizes western success. Its Liberal Party says that global challenges require it to take the lead so that the next generation of economic opportunities can get underway.

As such, it has fulfilled a promise that it made in 2003 when its leader first came to power — to close all of the province’s coal-fired power plants by 2014. The so-called Thunder Bay Generating Station was the last of the coal era — one that 10 years earlier had supplied 25 percent of the province’s electricity.

Beyond eliminating coal, Ontario has vowed to increase the amount of “cleaner” generation by 20 percent while pledging to cut its heat-trapping emissions by 15 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. It’s a move that over time will benefit the renewable sector, which should increase its holdings from 4,125 megawatts in 2011 to 20,000 megawatts by 2025.

“Getting off coal is the single largest climate change initiative undertaken in North America and is equivalent to taking up to 7 million cars off the road,” says Bob Chiarelli, Ontario’s minister of energy.

The province currently relies mostly on nuclear energy (56 percent) and hydro (22 percent.) Meantime, natural gas and renewables now supply 10 percent and 5 percent, respectively. In the coming decade, though, nuclear’s share is projected to fall while that of natural gas is expected to rise. One company likely to do well by the energy reforms there is TransCanadaTransCanada, which owns the network of natural gas pipelines that traverse Canada and the United States.

But critics of the provincial government’s chosen path say that the energy strategy is expensive. Citizens there are complaining about rising electricity rates, a direct result of the subsidies given to renewable energy developers — dissent in which policymakers are working to quell by granting tax breaks to homeowners who install green technologies.

Ontario has said, in fact, that electricity rates will rise by 42 percent for homeowners by 2018 and 68 percent by 2032. It has also said that commercial and industrial customers will see price increases of 33 percent by 2018 and 55 percent by 2032. Not all of that, however, is the result of nixing coal. Some of it will be from diminished use of nuclear power that is relatively inexpensive to operate.

Having said that, an independent study released in 2005 said that the health and environmental benefits of eliminating coal generation would amount to $4.4 billion annually.

Are the United States and Ontario good examples for Africa? Considering that they have already industrialized, it’s a difficult comparison. Still, the technological advances that the western world has made could be shared with the developing world, allowing those growing economies to install more wind and solar than they might otherwise have done. At the Africa Ascending conference, for example, participants correlated the rise of cell phones on the continent to that of modern electricity — noting that their countries basically skipped past the landline phase.

But Africa has 600 million people without access to electricity. And while it’s rich with sunshine and natural gas, it will still use coal — to the chagrin of some who say that the atmosphere cannot absorb much more carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. Even the World Bank President Jim Yong Kim, who has pledged to increase funding for sustainable energies to fight global warming, said that coal should play a part in Africa’s economic development.

“In certain places where the only option is coal, we have to look at that,” says Kim, at the conference.

Coal may have a place at the energy table but it’s not at the head, as once was the case. Economies, once reliant on coal, can now make the same economic strides using a preponderance of other, cleaner fuels — the lesson that both Obama and Ontario want to impart to Africa and its leaders.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

“Is it too hard to go to the moon, eradicate smallpox or end apartheid? Is it too hard to build a computer that fits in your pocket? No? Then it’s not too hard to build a clean energy future, either.” http://clmtr.lt/c/KWR0fz0cMJ

If Africa is going to burn Coal then why not help them burn it as cleanly as possible, that is where the World Bank and others should help, while at the same time installing Solar (of all flavors) as fast as possible.

By working from both ends toward the middle, Africa can help those in rural areas while also improving the quality of life for those in it larger Cities.

Affluent countries will shift away from Coal because of the long term health costs, while poorer Countries will focus on the near term, since life is far cheaper in places like Africa.

Unsaid in most MSM articles is that Solar (of all flavors) is now less expensive (long term) and far less dangerous to install than traditional options like Coal, Nuclear and even Gas especially for ratepayers, but it is being fought by those seeking to profit from ratepayer energy “enslavement”.

Quite a fascinating dilemma. Renewables are arguably less expensive than coal over the typical project lifetime. Other pro’s of renewables are that transmission lines can be avoided (out side cities), and solar/batteries have the benefit of zero moving parts. Renewables do have dispatching shortcomings. Coal plants on the other hand (typically) require foreign exchange to purchase the fuels (oil to start em up) and represent fairly advanced technological projects to maintain. For that reason coal plants help train countries in the use of technology. Perhpas the biggest issue is the scarce CAPEX required to build different plants…dirty coal is lower CAPEX than renewables on a per-kwhr generated basis. The countries should clearly go as heavy on renewables as they possibly can for economic, not global warming reasons.

I think they are now concentrating more in clean energy – wind and solar, which i think is great news because there are opportunities: clean energy: http://constructionreviewonline.com/2014/06/16/africas-largest-wind-power-project-receives-us253m-opic/ and more http://constructionreviewonline.com/2014/08/11/u-s-africa-leaders-summit-u-s-invest-14-b-construction-among-projects-africa/